Hi!
> > > Currently, we use the CPU hotplug to disable nonboot CPUs in the suspend
> > > code
> > > paths, but with the recent change of code ordering (ie. nonboot CPUs are
> > > disabled after freezing tasks _and_ devices) it has become quite
> > > troublesome.
> > > The reason of this is that there are some CPU hotplug notifiers
> > > registered and
> > > called on each run of cpu_up()/cpu_down() that assume the system to be
> > > fully
> > > functional, which is not the case during the suspend. Moreover, at least
> > > some
> > > of them do things that are not really necessary for disabling or enabling
> > > the
> > > nonboot CPUs.
> >
> > Right.
> >
> > > The advantage of using the CPU hotplug (in its current form) for
> > > suspending is
> > > that if some CPUs don't reappear during the resume, we are safe. Still, I
> > > think it would be more appropriate, and simpler in the long run, to
> > > notify the
> > > interested subsystems _only_ if one (or more) CPUs are not functional
> > > after the
> > > resume.
> >
> > I'm afraid that adding 'cpu not there so simulate unplug' path will
> > make it complex, and prone to failure, as _noone_ is going to test it.
>
> Does it mean you think we should stick with the current approach and sort out
> all issues as they show up, or should we go for not using the CPU hotplug for
> suspending without implementing the 'cpu not there so simulate unplug' path
> at all (eg. we can fail the resume instead)?
I'd fix the current approach, but...
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
